Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gupta and Co. Vs. Kripa Ram Brothers , and contends that although the word ‘case’ does not necessarily mean a suit and may include interlocutory orders, in the instant case no case has been decided by the lower Court. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court have observed as under:-
“The word “case” is not an exact equivalent of the word “suit”. It is something wider. At the same time, it does not include every order that is passed by a Court during the trial of a suit or proceeding pending before it. It cannot be a case unless it is a proceeding which can be regarded as something separate and in a sense independent from the suit under hearing, and the termination of that proceeding should be somewhat different from mere-orders passed in the ordinary trial of the suit itself. Where the case is a proceeding which can be considered separate and distinct and is finally disposed of by an order which terminates it, it may well be considered to be a case decided although the suit has not in one sense been completely disposed of. This view has been relied on by the learned counsel for the opponents. The question is whether a proceeding relating to consolidation of suits is an independent proceeding or is part of the proceeding of the two suits consolidated. In my opinion, the application to consolidate the two suits is a separate and independent proceeding. If only one suit is Bled, such an application cannot be given. Such an application has nothing to do with the matters to be decided in either of the suits. It is not of the nature of an interlocutory application in the suit. I, therefore reject the preliminary objection and hold that revision does lie u/s 115, C. P. Code, in respect of the order to consolidate two suits for the purpose of hearing evidence.
